Well there are no posts dedicated to TOKINA or TAMRON lenses , strange because
lots of people would like to know how they compare to the big makes :?:G:?.

I`m dedicating a part of my personal webalbum site to showing a few pictures taken with different lenses.

Here you will find pictures taken with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 &amp; a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro , these 2 lenses are not that popular , most people favor Nikon 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4 over the Sigma and the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro , Sigma 100mm f/2.8 macro , Nikon 60mm f/2.8 macro , Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR macro over the Tokina.

So have a look at how these perform and do come back later because i`ll be posting some more pictures taken with other lenses like the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 &amp; Tamron f/2.8 macro and many more in the futur

Tamron, for some reason, has always been better than i expected i had the cheapo 70-300 and it was just warm and had a nice look to it (not that sharp or contrasty, but still darn pleasant and great color).
Can't say that about the sigmas i used, they all sucked.

I've used some cheapo tamrons with some success. I just wasn't thrilled with build quality. I also owned a tamron 200-400 and although I liked it, it was just too big and I didn't use it all that much.

I just got the sigma 10-20 and the build quality is very good, and although I've only taken a few shots with it, I really think I'm going to like it. I had a few sigmas with my old Minolta film setup too.

People tend to lump all 3rd party lenses into one mixed bag, but actually like Nikon (or Canon), the 3rd party lenses are also divided into two low/high-end groups with various quality levels:

o The consumer grade lenses
-> Usually plastic build and more affordable which tend to have questionable quality as they compete on prices for the mass market

o The pro-level grade lenses
-> Most if not all the lenses in this group tend to be made out of metal and are of higher quality than consumer grade polycarbonate's Nikon. The lenses in this group are the Tamron SP (High-Performance Specification), the Tokina ATX-Pro, and the Sigma EX which also come in HSM (AF-s equivalent):

The only Sigma lens I have is a 70-200mm HSM f2.8 that I bought about 8 or9 months ago. It gives fantastic pictures and even when I put a 1.4 teleconverter on it (does that make 2 Sigma lenses?), it didn't seem to lose any quality... The only reason I don't use this lens too much is because of my blood pressure shakes, which spoil those long shots. I do use it from a tripod though. Apart from that I use VR lenses. Helps meimmensely... Once Sigma reveal theirimage stablisingtechnology, I'll be in like a robbers dog...

I own 2 Sigma lenses. An old 24mm f/2.8 prime and the AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM.

I purchased the 24mm 2nd hand and I suspect it needs a little service as it only opens to a max aperature of 3.0 not 2.8. It's not exactly the sharpest lens but it does okay. When it focus' it is loud. I read somewhere that this was a common complaint about that lens.

The 10-20 is really nice and it's really W-I-D-E. I recently got this lens and have not had much time to experiment with it. I've read complaints about this lens' sharpness and from what I've noticed I wonder if that could be related to the relatively limited aperature that this lens has. I can't say that the lens is exceptionally sharp but instead it requires a good deal of light to pull off an image with a good contrast. My intent is to use this lens for landscapes and architecture and I've noted that a dimly lit room is not the best setting for using this lens. Here is one shot I took the day I received this lens:

My most recent third party lens is a Tamron 90mm macro. I considered the Nikon 105 but reviews said this was as good if not better in some circumstances and Ipreferred the slightly shorter focal length.